Angus Leeming wrote:
> Moreover, as you say in your commentary, this latter is ambigous if
> two formats have the same extension. That doesn't seem very clever to
> me...
The original version is in now.
Georg
Angus Leeming wrote:
> Now call me dumn but why do we now have
>
> std::string const
> support::getFormatFromContents(std::string const & name);
>
> Format const *
> Formats::getFormatFromExtension(string const & extension) const;
The latter is needed by the former. The only reason for putting
Georg Baum wrote:
> Georg Baum wrote:
>
>> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>
>>> That would be me... but no. I don't think so. I vaguely remember
>>> that I had a perfectly good reason for doing this. But not that I
>>> can remember this now...
>>
>> If you think you had a good reason I'll leave it
Georg Baum wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> That would be me... but no. I don't think so. I vaguely remember that
>> I had a perfectly good reason for doing this. But not that I can
>> remember this now...
>
> If you think you had a good reason I'll leave it as is.
Here is the updated p
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> That would be me... but no. I don't think so. I vaguely remember that
> I had a perfectly good reason for doing this. But not that I can
> remember this now...
If you think you had a good reason I'll leave it as is.
Georg
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Georg Baum wrote:
>
>> While playing with the mover stuff I found out that getExtFromContents()
>> is inconsistent: It returns format names, not extensions for formats that
>> it knows, and it returns file extensions for formats that it does not
>> know.
Georg Baum wrote:
> While playing with the mover stuff I found out that getExtFromContents()
> is inconsistent: It returns format names, not extensions for formats that
> it knows, and it returns file extensions for formats that it does not
> know.
> This does not matter in many cases, because for
